User talk:JamieBrown2011/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, JamieBrown2011. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page International Churches of Christ, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Cordless Larry, thanks for posting this here. To be clear, I am a member of the church, but I am not paid or asked to do any editing on this page, my only concern is accurate information being reflected.
For example you just posted on the ICOC page in the LEAD section that the church is subject to federal lawsuits and quoted a Rolling Stone Magazine article. In this very same article it is stated: “In July, the plaintiffs withdrew the federal suits. Their attorney says they plan to temporarily shelve federal RICO claims related to the alleged “pyramid scheme” and to refile all of them.” Please remove the inaccurate and falsely recorded information on the page. To this date NONE of the cases have been re-filed!!! Looking forward to your co-operation in this matter.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've reworded this to reflect the fact that the federal lawsuits have been withdrawn but the LA ones remain. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Cordless Larry My plan at some point today is to WP:ANI & propose a permablock on all affiliate IPs via WP:WHOIS (5 known of so far) for the temp blocked user: Qewr4231. This will not only assist in the academic dialog on this passively disputed page but it will frankly quench the fire in social media forums where he is ginning up support to inappropriately edit this encyclopedia. Although I am not a member of this church, his WP:COI & WP:SOAPBOX caught my attention after I received a notification over a photo a bot wanted to remove. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update, Coachbricewilliams28. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- 331dot While I was gathering evidence to propose a WP:SPI on Qewr4231 , I noticed you placed a 72hr-temp ban on his 5 IPs already @ 07:55, 4 September 2023. Since this is activity as been happening since 2009 [[1]] then receiving 3 blocks in 2015 [and another in 2019] for the same activity, I think this has approached the time to consider a full ban. This user has been promoting users in an alternate social media platform to come and perform various disruptive edits for comic value. Afterward, they screenshot and share their edits with the community. An example of this is when Muzikman7182 who formally used this username: Clipadilla1975 at one point even edited my personal sandbox to add in his "cult" edits. This user, inspired by the subject recently did this BLANKING EDIT [[2]], then screenshot it for the alt-forum hence my ability to connect the users. It is my belief that if the instigator of these non-academic posts is thwarted, it'll minimize the drama. What is your advice on the matter? Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Usually they find a way to do what they want to do, but bringing this to WP:ANI is probably needed. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @ All the users from FB Qewr4231 is bringing to this talk page. ---> My issue with him is not his posting, but his WP:SOAPBOXING , WP:ConflictOfInterest (without balanced content) , WP:SOCKPUPPETING (creating multiple accounts to create a bigger voice for his cause) & outright dodging of protocols here after being banned. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to vent about his feelings. Appropriate articles regarding the suits are welcome, his venting is not. If you would like to make additions, protocols are enforced by 3rd party admins (not just icoc members) Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Cordless Larry I am indifferent to the page edits so I'll leave that to you and Jaime. Regarding Q, his other accounts and forum posts ginning up support to make non-academic edits is WP:ANI your suggestion as well? Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the place to report editor behaviour problems, Coachbricewilliams28. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Cordless Larry I am indifferent to the page edits so I'll leave that to you and Jaime. Regarding Q, his other accounts and forum posts ginning up support to make non-academic edits is WP:ANI your suggestion as well? Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- 331dot While I was gathering evidence to propose a WP:SPI on Qewr4231 , I noticed you placed a 72hr-temp ban on his 5 IPs already @ 07:55, 4 September 2023. Since this is activity as been happening since 2009 [[1]] then receiving 3 blocks in 2015 [and another in 2019] for the same activity, I think this has approached the time to consider a full ban. This user has been promoting users in an alternate social media platform to come and perform various disruptive edits for comic value. Afterward, they screenshot and share their edits with the community. An example of this is when Muzikman7182 who formally used this username: Clipadilla1975 at one point even edited my personal sandbox to add in his "cult" edits. This user, inspired by the subject recently did this BLANKING EDIT [[2]], then screenshot it for the alt-forum hence my ability to connect the users. It is my belief that if the instigator of these non-academic posts is thwarted, it'll minimize the drama. What is your advice on the matter? Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update, Coachbricewilliams28. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Cordless Larry My plan at some point today is to WP:ANI & propose a permablock on all affiliate IPs via WP:WHOIS (5 known of so far) for the temp blocked user: Qewr4231. This will not only assist in the academic dialog on this passively disputed page but it will frankly quench the fire in social media forums where he is ginning up support to inappropriately edit this encyclopedia. Although I am not a member of this church, his WP:COI & WP:SOAPBOX caught my attention after I received a notification over a photo a bot wanted to remove. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Cordless Larry for making those changes. However it is still not accurate. All the lawsuits were withdrawn, they have threatened to re-file on a state level but to date there are no such lawsuits. Please remove the factually incorrect information and the accusations made on the basis of those withdrawn lawsuits? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- This should really be discussed on the article's talk page rather than here, but just to say that the Rolling Stone article supports the current version of the text. To quote: "According to two lawsuits filed July 13 in L.A. County Court, the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) is not a church, but a 'cult', a high-control group where leaders allegedly take advantage of the members... The allegations in the L.A. lawsuits, which refer to alleged incidents in the 1990s and 2000s, first appeared among a set of six federal lawsuits filed around the start of 2023 in California's Central District. In July, the plaintiffs withdrew the federal suits". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Cordless Larry I know the wording of the article is a bit confusing regarding the law suits. ALL of the six lawsuits were filed as federal suits and ALL the lawsuits have been dismissed. If you go over to www.pacermonitor.com and search for the court dockets they are available for anyone to read. I repeat ALL the cases have been dismissed by the judge. @Cordless Larry, go and see for yourself and do the right thing. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- The source very clearly differentiates between the two recent LA County Court cases and six earlier federal cases. If you believe this is wrong and have reliable sources to demonstrate that, please make that case on the article's talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Cordless Larry As stated above, the Reliable Source being referred to is found at www.pacermonitor.com (which is a site that keeps dockets of court cases in the US). A simple search reveals that no such LA County Court Cases have actually been logged. Please prove me wrong... The Rolling Stone magazine article seems to suggest they have already been filed, but unless you can show evidence of their actual filing, this is false and misleading. I am aware that this discussion should be held at the Churches Talk Page, but since you began this discussion on my personal page, let's at least conclude what was started. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Court dockets are primary sources, whereas on Wikipedia the preference is for use of secondary sources. If you want to discuss this further, please take it to the article talk page. I didn't start a discussion about the sources here, but rather posted a notice about your conflict of interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I haven’t placed any misleading information on the page to be removed. I am providing primary sources that appear to contradict the magazine article, that at this point appear to be incorrect. Please provide the source where you get the information that ANY of these cases have been re-filed. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Cordless Larry As stated above, the Reliable Source being referred to is found at www.pacermonitor.com (which is a site that keeps dockets of court cases in the US). A simple search reveals that no such LA County Court Cases have actually been logged. Please prove me wrong... The Rolling Stone magazine article seems to suggest they have already been filed, but unless you can show evidence of their actual filing, this is false and misleading. I am aware that this discussion should be held at the Churches Talk Page, but since you began this discussion on my personal page, let's at least conclude what was started. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- The source very clearly differentiates between the two recent LA County Court cases and six earlier federal cases. If you believe this is wrong and have reliable sources to demonstrate that, please make that case on the article's talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Cordless Larry I know the wording of the article is a bit confusing regarding the law suits. ALL of the six lawsuits were filed as federal suits and ALL the lawsuits have been dismissed. If you go over to www.pacermonitor.com and search for the court dockets they are available for anyone to read. I repeat ALL the cases have been dismissed by the judge. @Cordless Larry, go and see for yourself and do the right thing. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- This should really be discussed on the article's talk page rather than here, but just to say that the Rolling Stone article supports the current version of the text. To quote: "According to two lawsuits filed July 13 in L.A. County Court, the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) is not a church, but a 'cult', a high-control group where leaders allegedly take advantage of the members... The allegations in the L.A. lawsuits, which refer to alleged incidents in the 1990s and 2000s, first appeared among a set of six federal lawsuits filed around the start of 2023 in California's Central District. In July, the plaintiffs withdrew the federal suits". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Cordless Larry for making those changes. However it is still not accurate. All the lawsuits were withdrawn, they have threatened to re-file on a state level but to date there are no such lawsuits. Please remove the factually incorrect information and the accusations made on the basis of those withdrawn lawsuits? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- JamieBrown2011 So everyone is aware, the above postings are STILL a non-registered account yet again from perma-blocked user Qewr4231 These copy & pasted sections from Facebook aren't encyclopedia-worth datasets. One day when there is a CONCLUSION to the filings, yes. For now, he is just here to press his agenda since he can't post on the actual article. I would dump his nonsense since YOUR talkpage is YOUR space. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- @JaimeBrown2011: The WP:BE was verified. See previous comments. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks JamieBrown2011 (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- @JaimeBrown2011: The WP:BE was verified. See previous comments. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- JamieBrown2011 So everyone is aware, the above postings are STILL a non-registered account yet again from perma-blocked user Qewr4231 These copy & pasted sections from Facebook aren't encyclopedia-worth datasets. One day when there is a CONCLUSION to the filings, yes. For now, he is just here to press his agenda since he can't post on the actual article. I would dump his nonsense since YOUR talkpage is YOUR space. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)